This is reposted from The Virginia Family Foundation's President, Victoria Cobb:
Tuesday, March 12, 2024
Sadly, last week Governor Youngkin signed HB
174 (D-Henson) into law, which establishes for the first time in
our state Code the formal recognition and enforcement of so-called
“same-sex marriage.” Aside from the obvious and numerous worldview
implications of redefining the bedrock institution of marriage in law, HB
174 will jeopardize conscience and religious protections for those who
officiate weddings, and it further embeds the dangerous and false notion
that “sex” and “gender” are separate categories of human identity.
Since the bill arrived to the Governor’s desk
more than 7 days prior to adjournment of the General Assembly, he was
required either to sign, veto, or offer amendments to the bill, or else
take no action and allow it to automatically become law without his
signature. Despite our lobbying the Governor to either veto or at least
amend the bill, he chose to affirmatively put his signature on it.
We urged the Governor to amend the bill if he would not veto
it, including to strike the problematic word “gender” (since “sex” was
already listed), but he declined. We also suggested amendments to
strengthen religious protections for everyone performing wedding
ceremonies, but the Governor signed the bill as is.
Among the other things the new law does, it forces local
clerks of court and their deputies to issue marriage licenses to same-sex
couples even if doing so violates their conscience, similar to what was
forced onto Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who was thrown in
jail and continues to face lawsuits for not signing her name to a license
for a same-sex couple. She was afforded no religious accommodation
whatsoever, and neither does this new law provide any religious
accommodations for Virginia clerks.
The new law also broadly declares that “marriages shall be
recognized in the Commonwealth regardless of the sex, gender, or race of
the parties.” But it doesn’t say that only
the government “shall recognize” same-sex “marriages” in the
Commonwealth. Does this now mean that every individual and entity,
including religious organizations and churches, must recognize same-sex
“marriages” as valid marriages in every context? The implications of this
directive are potentially vast and problematic.
Moreover, the bill pretends
to protect churches and clergy from having to perform same-sex or
transgender “marriage” ceremonies in violation of their faith, by
offering a fig leaf statement of protection. But in fact, if anything, it
only diminishes
and calls into question existing protections. The language purports to
protect only religious organizations and clergy (but not anyone else with
religious or conscience objections), and then only when “acting in their religious
capacity.” But it’s anyone’s guess what that means or how it might be
scrutinized by those who would seek to target churches and pastors and
attempt to have them officiate a same-sex ceremony. While we still
contend the Constitution protects people in this regard, this statute may
unfortunately lead to onerous lawsuits to validate those rights.
Still, one of the worst parts of this bill is that it
further injects the concept of “gender identity” into the law by
intentionally and unnecessarily separating the concepts of “sex” and
“gender.” Without question, the drafters of this bill were seeking to
single out and further normalize the problematic construct of gender
identity. Click on the image below (and go to the 28:33 mark) to
hear more on this topic.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment